State Of Maharashtra vs Shakuntala W/O Gajanan Jodh And ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 909 Bom

JUDGMENT

A.P. Lavande, J.

1. The present revision application has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 19-7-2000 in Special Case No. 12/1997. The respondents are original accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are prosecuted for offences under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code and 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. In Special Case No. 12-1997 before the Special Judge, Amravati, the case of prosecution was that Shri T. J. Meshram, who is accused No. 1 in special Case No. 12/97, was Regional Transport Officer at Amravati at the relevant time, and as such a public servant, had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and had committed offences under the Act. It was the case of the prosecution that said Shri Meshram had purchased certain properties in the name of respondent No. 1 from the earnings made illegally by said Shri Meshram. The case of the prosecution was that a plot bearing No. 63 situated at Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur, was purchased by said Shri Meshram, who is an accused No. 1 in the Special Case No. 12/1997. It was also the case of the prosecution that two trucks were also purchased in the name of respondent No. 1, who according to prosecution was the mother of one Smt. Raj Gajanan Jodh, who was mistress of said Shri Meshram. The prosecution had relied upon the statement of vendor of the plot, and the persons who have sold the trucks to respondent No. 1 to substantiate that the plot and the vehicles were actually purchased by said Shri Meshram in the name of respondent No. 1 herein. According to the prosecution, respondent No. 1 was an abettor/conspirator for commission of offences under the Act. Insofar as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that one truck was purchased by said Shri Meshram in the name of respondent No. 2. In support of this fact, the prosecution relied on the statement of the husband of the owner, who stated that the truck was actually purchased by original accused No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 2 herein. Relying on this material, the prosecution filed charge sheet against respondent herein for the offences above mentioned. After filing of the charge sheet, process was issued against all the accused and respondents herein filed an application dated 2-12-1997 for their discharge. The said application was opposed by the prosecution and after hearing both sides, learned Special Judge by order dated 19-7-2000 discharged the accused.

2. I have heard Mr. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant and Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Since this is revision application against order discharging the accused, it is appropriate to state what the Apex Court has observed insofar as framing of charge is concerned. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court , State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. The Apex Court has observed in paragraph 32 as under :-

"The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

4. Mr. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant submits that the impugned order is totally contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in catena of the decisions laying down the principles as to what is required at the time of framing of charge. According to Mr. Mirza, the statements of the persons, who sold the plot and the trucks to the respondents clearly establishes, prima facie, that the plot and the vehicles were purchased by original accused No. 1 Shri Meshram in the name of respondent No. 1 herein. According to Mr. Mirza, statement of owner and statement of the husband of original owner of the truck clearly makes out at least prima facie, that the plot and the trucks were actually purchased by original accused No. 1 in the name of these respondents. According to Mr. Mirza, these facts have been totally ignored and the learned Special Judge has gone on the footing that the certain transactions have been shown in the Income Tax Return filed by respondents, I am afraid having regard to the settled principles governing framing of charge, the exercise done by the Special Judge was contrary to the law. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant that the Special Judge at the stage of framing of charge has appreciated the materials on record and has come to the conclusion that the material brought on record is not sufficient even to frame charge against respondents. The Special Judge has completely lost sight of the principles which govern the framing of charge against an accused. I find from the record that the finding of the learned Special Judge that the respondents could not have abetted the commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act by accused No. 1 is contrary to the law. Having regard to the material on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been successful, at least prima facie, to make out the offences as alleged, by the prosecution. Having regard to the material on record, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Special Judge cannot be accepted on any principle of law and the order of discharge against respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside. I have refrained from discussing in detail the materials on record in order that no prejudice is caused to either side during the trial. Needless to observe that the Special Judge shall decide the case on its merits on the basis of the evidence led and shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order, which are made for the limited purpose of finding out if there is prima facie case against the respondents.

5. In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19-7-2000 discharging the respondents is quashed and set aside. The impugned order insofar as it has rejected the application of respondents herein for release of plot and the vehicles is maintained. Parties shall appear before the Court of Special Judge, Amravati on 14-9-2004 at 11.00 a.m. The records of the case have already been ordered to be sent to Special Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Revision Application No. 95/2000. The learned Special Judge shall decide Special Case No. 12/1997 in accordance with law. The Revision application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.